Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Open Forum, Week of March 2
LNA’s Comments Open Forum allows Readers opportunities to comment about any post (note, we said “Post”, not any “Topic”). All comments will be held for review and Moderation per our new policy. The Open Forum enables Readers to Comment on paywall articles (to the extent the paywall preview is open to all readers).
Maintain civility and follow Reader Comment rules.
A new Open Forum will be posted weekly.
“Rolls-Royce teases UltraFan 30 features as demonstrator heads for design freeze”
“Rolls-Royce has shown off a full-scale mock-up of its proposed UltraFan 30 engine aimed at next-generation narrowbody aircraft, featuring characteristics including a short inlet and ripple-edged outlet guide vanes.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/rolls-royce-teases-ultrafan-30-features-as-demonstrator-heads-for-design-freeze/166474.article
Good, informative article. Thanks for the link.
Really interesting.
“The model displayed has a 90in (229cm) fan, although the demonstrator will have a slightly smaller one and feature a core based on the Pearl 10X business jet engine”.
The Pearl 10X has a 18klbf thrust with a 52″ fan.
The demonstrator could be close to the A220 PW1500.
My thoughts exactly when I read that the engine core for the UF30 was from the Pearl 10X engine with the Advance 2 improvements plus the new technologies from the UF test bed and the Trent engines (XWB and 1000 series) improvement program. The A220 current PW engine is has 73 inch fan, so I think a slightly larger fan (75-80 inches) will fit under the current A220-300 with enough ground clearance without having to install a taller under-carriage or do what was done with the MAX to accommodate the engine (mount them further forward angled upwards causing aerodynamic problems) that resulted in the accidents. The PW1500 engine has about 20 inches of ground clearance on the -300.
I think we can be confident that AB is encouraging RR to develop an A220-compatible power plant a.s.a.p….for very obvious reasons.
No, there is no effort to put a second engine type on the A220. There was some thought of putting the LEAP on it, but this fell by the wayside.
Does that also apply to the A220-500…which is still on the drawing board?
A220-500 will have only the GTF
2nd engine always was fluff.
Funny some of the exact reasons you want a 2nd engine also are against it. What are Airlines saying, we don’t want no stinking new engines ?
Your markets is not 14 x A220 a month, its Potential is the -500 builds only.
Assuming you get even 50% is erroneous thinking.
First you have established base and of course thats PW. A maturing PW 1000 in the hand is worth a dozen Ultra Fans in the clouds.
A new operator for A220 (500 only in this case) is not invested in the PW world, but, they then depend solely on a UF that is not mature and is going to have problems. So you crippled your new ops with an engine that is proving out.
I have no doubt RR can make a good UF, but its also a given its not problem free.
While its a guess, I think Airbus did some checking and found that no operator was willing to go with a UF.
UF offers nothing the PW 1000 does not except not mature.
Same aspects all related to the LEAP.
And how much could RR or CFM sink into an ginseng that sells very few per year? Maybe none.
So then we go with, give us an exclusive and we will build it. Hmm, talk about angry customers. We are buying E2s from now on.
Even a new aircraft RR has an uphill battle from the standpoint that CFM and PW can offer a derivative engine that has a lot of maturity to it.
Its ironic that PW fell into the situation because Airbus wanted a 2nd engine choice and there were no other options. RR had nothing, V2500 could not be updated.
Airbus was created on a gap in aircraft mfg, so its a sort of PW analog.
As Bjorn is showing with his Corner series, costs of anything aircraft related keep gain up and up regardless of the new tools. LCA engines are no different.
RR has shown that even if you are a choice on an aircraft, if you falter, you can loose that market. The only good part is the follow on engines for the A330/350 that they have an exclusive on.
Very tangled.
“Hundreds more flights cancelled as world faces worst travel chaos since Covid pandemic”
“Early on Monday, 1,239 flights had already been cancelled. Emirates Airlines, based in Dubai; Etihad Airways, based in Abu Dhabi; and Qatar Airways, based in Doha; have collectively cancelled hundreds of flights.
“Other carriers cancelled services across the region. Air India cancelled flights on Sunday departing from Delhi, Mumbai and Amritsar for major cities in Europe and North America.
“Almost 2,800 flights were cancelled on Saturday, and 3,156 cancelled on Sunday, according to the tracking platform FlightAware.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/02/flights-cancelled-middle-east-travel-chaos-us-israeli-iran-conflictflights-cancelled-middle-east-travel-chaos-us-israeli-iran-conflict
===
And, adding further to aviation’s pain: fuel prices have increased sharply, and will probably continue to do so for some time.
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/#Murban-Crude
Is Airbus the next Boeing
This is an interesting Vid from Mentour Pilot exploring recent Airbus Quality Failures and how the culture at Airbus may be changing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xftd6yXOm9g
The surely do some good ones.
Airbus clearly is not in the dire straights Boeing put themselves into, but they are not immune from the hugely difficult task of build LCA.
I think disruptions are going to be the way forward and maybe they always would have when you build as many LCA a month per Airbus and Boeing working their way back up in rate. The build numbers are truly nutty.
“China Southern Sells Boeing 787 Fleet In Online Auction… And There’s A Taker!”
“China Southern hasn’t been very happy with these planes. The airline states that it wants to instead focus on larger wide body aircraft, which are higher capacity. Also keep in mind that while the 787-8 has great range, China Southern’s fleet doesn’t have the updated maximum takeoff weight, so these 787-8s aren’t as capable as some newer ones.
“In 2024, the airline started a project to try and sell these aircraft to “further optimise its fleet structure,” though the process was suspended in early 2025, given the uncertainty related to tariffs. After several months, the airline resumed the process, with the idea being that China Southern wanted to take an “all or nothing” approach, and it was only willing to sell these Dreamliners if it could get rid of all of them, along with a spare pair of GE Aerospace GEnx-1B engines.”
“… it appears highly likely that these 10 jets are headed to Thai Airways. While it doesn’t specifically reference this deal, the airline has made clear that it’s acquiring 10 787-8s through a leasing company, with deliveries expected starting in the coming months. If that’s unrelated to this deal, it would be a mighty strange coincidence.”
https://onemileatatime.com/news/china-southern-sells-boeing-787-fleet-auction/
@Abalone
CSN has some interesting fleet decisions to make wrt wideobody. They have 31 B787 and 45 A330/A350 in service…and absolutley nothing on order.
Though the C929 would make a logical pivot…that EIS is not immenint. Interestingly enough, China Eastern and Air China also have nothing on order.
They might have orders hiding under the “undisclosed” sections at the OEMs — for example, there are currently 18 A350s and 22 A330s on order for “undisclosed” customers.
China might also, for example, be negotiating with AB to open a widebody FAL in China, in return for a large order. The Indians have done that several times for military orders.
Who knows? One thing is certain — they’re not stupid.
A sloth is not stupid. Its the ultimate in a series of design choices that suit its niche.
China has a system which is government orders, so its not the Airlines doing the large planning, its the Government. Slow moving government, 5 years plans and all that, risk adverse government.
The 929 if it ever sees the light of day is a 2040 entry.
Clearly China wants to maintain negotiation power with Airbus, ergo Boeing keeps getting a chance in the mix (or at least the possible chance).
Someone dumping the less than desirable -8? Don’t blame them. They were not given a choice to start with and with all the drawbacks, I am surprised its even offered any more.
I will point out that Air China has 101 neo, China Eastern 58 neo and China Southern 46 neo (as well as 28 Max). It just a lack of backlog on widebody.
Though I did miss somehow that CES has 4 B787-9 and 4 A350 on order so it’s not completely zero (as well as 6 B777-300 which are never going to happen).
My quick hunch is that it is much more difficult to pivot away from Boeing as it relates to widebody. All three operators already use a substantial amount of B777 lift.
any composite material experts out there? not to many dots to connect any thoughts on how China aviation industry composite are advancing?
2024 from a report
AVIC Industry Composites Materials (China)
completed the trial production PPV panel development for C929 forward fuselage panel
Achieved breakthroughs in key technologies for the preparation of domestically produced high performance carbon fiber prepreg and first delivery of a new type of carbon fiber prepreg
2025 from a news article
AVIC Aviation High Technology (aviation materials) is building new factory in Beijing $127m USD for producing large structural components for civil aircraft to be completed in 2028
any composite fuselage experts?
..could this be the C929 composite fuselage section process? only a guess
Chinese patent (Shanghai Aviation Technology)
Patent name Aircraft fuselage wall panel structure and preparation method thereof
“The invention discloses an aircraft fuselage wall plate structure and a preparation method thereof, and belongs to the technical field of aircraft fuselage wall plates. The aircraft fuselage panel structure comprises a panel inner skin, a pultruded composite stringer liner and a panel outer skin; the pultruded composite stringer liner is sandwiched between the panel inner skin and the panel outer skin; the pultruded composite stringer liner is prepared from a composite of a fiber reinforcement and a thermosetting resin by a pultrusion process. The unique aircraft fuselage panel structure can be manufactured in an integrated molding mode, the stringers and the skin do not need to be manufactured separately, and the stringers and the skin are connected on the basis. The corresponding preparation method provided by the application is low in cost and high in efficiency, can realize the manufacture of the wallboard with complex curvature, can endow the traditional pultruded stringer with more layering angle design capability, can reduce the number and cost of die tools, and can also provide the wallboard with the stringer with stronger connection performance”
link to full patent
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN117445444A/en?q=(China+shanghai+aviation+technology)&oq=China++shanghai+aviation+technology&page=2
another possible China patent for C929 composite fuselage?
Note Aerospace Haiying Zhenjiang Special Material (patent holder) produces the C919 composite aft bulkhead section.
connecting the dots…could this be a “process for C929 aft bulkhead production?
Patent title A co-curing molding method for large-size circumferential composite cavity skin of aircraft
if you want to drill down for drawings…download the Chinese version of the patent
patent link
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN119704712A/en?q=(china+aircraft+fuselage+wall+panel+structure+and+preparation+method)&oq=china+aircraft+fuselage+wall+panel+structure+and+preparation+method&page=2
This patent is from Jiangxi Hongdu Aviation Group …looks like it for the C929 without mention the aircraft name
For the C919 they did a metallic front mid fuselage section
For the C929 they will be doing composite rear mid fuselage section
Patent title A composite material integrated fuselage structure and manufacturing method
The invention discloses a composite material integrated fuselage structure and a manufacturing method, wherein the structure comprises a barrel section forming die, an inner skin-bulkhead barrel section……
if you want to see diagrams…download the Chinese versions
link for google patent
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN117341956A/en?q=(china+aircraft+fuselage+wall+panel+structure+and+preparation+method)&oq=china+aircraft+fuselage+wall+panel+structure+and+preparation+method&page=2
Thats all been done for the A330, a mixture of metal and some of the mostly rear structure is composite.
When was that 1994 …..
Perhaps thats the development path for this wonderful new Chinese made C919, an A330 clone ?
It follows the path of the earlier C9x9 types
Hi Dave.
I did a lot of Tupperware in the day. I preferred metal because I grew up with it. The stuff you are finding is not surprising. Expecting the Chinese to skip composite structures and continue with Metallics is a low probability bet. Rag and Glue parts are really fairly simple to put together. The hard part is making them quickly. Usually, you need a lot of tooling to make rate. Chinese airplanes to date haven’t ramped to significant rates yet, so there are lessons to be learned with speed. You know that the Panel Fab is not the hard part. Connecting it together with properly designed drilling and fastening processes are probably more difficult as the fibers must be able to be cut cleanly within the matrix to provide for positive load transmission. holes with internal chipping of the matrix or fuzzy fiber edges create MechProp Knockdowns, and having to work around them gets heavy when you need to bulk up to get over processing deficiencies. It looks like you found patents for fuselage panels and the pressure bulkhead. This is good news and really rather expected progress. Those who think the west has a corner on making aircraft underestimate the Chinese at their peril. The Chinese could be on par with the west with their next airplane, I wouldn’t bet too much against it.
Chinas problem today is something like a Pro Football team in America. Both need to get the reps. China is very capable but isn’t doing enough aircraft fast enough to get the reps to compete heads up against the western makers. That will ultimately change, as will the very long certification paths they are on. Proving you can build vehicles that comply with the regulations is far more difficult than actually making it. Where they are in conquering the cert process is probably a better indicator of their future success. In the giant scheme of things, rag and glue fabrication in many ways is simpler than doing metal. The fact that they have very solid 5th gen fighters shows they can do a good job, they just need reps and scale. I was lucky to be in the industry when I was and do all the cool things I experienced, and even luckier to get out before my industry vanished from America. And like most things in America, it has a very high probability of going away.
The Chinese also did a great job dumping the Russians. They didnt need them after all. They have all the capabilities they need to make the next airframe. It will probably be a touch conservative, a bit heavy and if they do their own engines, a bit thirsty, but those really don’t matter as they have a huge domestic market and virtual price regulation and a reliable airplane can give up a little bit in those circumstances without too much trouble. I was there when we sold them the MD80 kits to jumpstart their industry. To see where they are today is stunning.
PNWgeek agree. We usually underestimate Chinese aerospace. I was lucky to witness developments close by, saw our media serving the howm public (all just inferior or copied) and quietly eat crow when proved wrong again.
https://en.defence-ua.com/media/contentimages/8b668d984267c0fd.jpg
PNWgeek
Thanks for the insight!
as for “Connecting it together with properly designed drilling and fastening processes are probably more difficult as the fibers”
Comac is going to Brotje Automation (Germany/Shanghai Electric Automation (Brotje Automation parent) for mid front fuselage panel assembly line (Zhejiang Huarui Aviation) and rear mid fuselage assembly (Jiangxi Hongdu Aviation Group)
– Front mid fuselage section
“This time Broetje won the bid for the C929 fuselage wall panel assembly assembly line. According to the company, the gantry-type multi-wall panel automatic drilling and riveting equipment designed to meet the requirements of the C929 fuselage wall panel for large size, large arc and composite materials has obvious advantages.” (e.g. MPAC machine)
Rear mid fuselage section
“C929 Aircraft Mid-Rear Fuselage Panel Automated Hole Drilling and Stud Insertion Production Line by Shanghai Electric Automation Group” (e.g. Brotje Automation)
Hi Dave and everybody else
Broejte getting the contract for the automation isnt a surprise, it’s a fairly limited world of builders and I suspect ElectroImpact was constrained by Export License issues.
I said the Panel Fab is not the hard part. Connecting it together with properly designed drilling and fastening processes are probably more difficult….
That said. The layperson has no idea the mountain you need to climb to develop and qualify the tooling to make something as simple as a drilled hole. The first thing to get your arms around is that Composites are NOT homogenous materials like Aluminum and Steels. They are a mix of 2 components that do not blend together. Composites are composed of a filler and a binder. The filler in most cases we study is carbon fiber and the binder, or matrix, is usually epoxy but sometimes thermoplastic resin whose use is on the rise. When you drill these things, you drill through 2 or more distinctly different materials stuck to each other. the cutting edge on the drill will cut discontinuously in a start stop action as the cutting-edge transitions from 1 material to the next inside the hole repeating this transition tens of thousands of times inside each hole. Fastening this stuff together with mechanical fasteners is a maddening thing to develop.
WHAT IS A HOLE. This sounds really simple, but the definition of the hole is the start of the entire fastening process. A hole is a round feature in a part that has a specified diameter, a tolerance for missing that size both above and below the set point, A straightness requirement where the top middle and bottom of the hole are co-linear. A SURFACE FINISH requirement where the roughness of the inside diameter of the hole must meet smoothness after cutting specification measured in Micro Inches. The surface finish is where the first battle is fought. The wall of the holes smoothness is what determines how efficiently the load transfers from the part to the fastener. How the cutting surface interfaces with the material as it slices through the composite is NOT predictable and needs to be studied as great length.
Imagine for a minute that as the hole is being drilled, the carbon fiber cuts cleanly and, on the numbers, BUT the epoxy being softer sticks to the cutting edge a tiny bit and pieces of it, very small pieces, pull out of the sidewall as the hole is being drilled. This is the surface finish problem. Those tiny little voids in the hole wall cannot transfer loads because they don’t touch the fastener. This is called a discontinuous load path. You have to make composites thicker to compensate for bad holes, higher hole quality means you can make lighter parts because you need less material to transfer the design loads.
So here are some of the variables. What you are cutting, the specific mix of filler and matrix. Carbon Uni Tape drills differently than Biaxial cloth. Each epoxy and each fabric you use reacts to cutters differently. Then it gets worse, varying the thickness of a part can change the cutter choice as chip clearance issues may happen even when the same material in thinner sections works great.
The metal the cutter is made from, this controls the hardness of the cutting edge. The point geometry, there are a near endless number of ways to grind the cutter. Do you gundrill it with a single edge. Do you use a 2, 3 or 4 flute cutters. Do you use a 60, 72, 100 or 115 degree point or do you need to find something else. Do you use Cobalt, High speed steel, Carbide or Diamond tipped cutters. Do you use a single margin drill to drill on the numbers or do you need to use a double margin drill to step the hole up to size.
Processing variables like RPM, feed rate, temperature, peck drilling all enter the mix. THEN you need to determine if you need to drill wet or dry, and if wet, which lube is best. Boeing uses literally Tank Truck loads of Acetyl Alcohol in both solid blocks for hand drill lube and liquids for automated drilling. Oh Yeah, let’s not forget vibration, how much vibration can your process withstand and how do you remediate it.
AND IF THAT ISNT ENOUGH.
You get to prove that the choices you develop will cycle in a test rig to show that over the life of the parts, the process you develop will remain within the expected performance range.
This is why the fastening process is complicated, its decided through experimentation. Many different combinations will get you what you need, but they all have different costs per hole as well as cycle times. Hitting the sweet spot can take a while.
PNWgeek
“The Chinese also did a great job dumping the Russians”…but the Chinese learned from the Russians on the impact of western sanctions with domestic replacements
My current research titled “China’s Commercial Aircraft Industry Indigenous Ecosystem: The Case of the Comac C919 and C929” will show lessons learned from the MC21 aircraft for the Chinese
As an example, MC21 wing factory developed their own ATL gantry style and AFP robot style machines to meet commercial aircraft mfg. processes (MC21 wing) (replacing MTorres equipment) They did this thru Russian university/industry partners (Chinese are doing the same)
Russia developed with own Automatic Fastening (drilling and riveting) system for the MC21 fuselage to replace Gemcor (US) equipment At this point the Chinese (C929) are going to use European companies (which are Chinese own) The Russians replaced Solvay material with domestically produced material
Very interesting. Thanks for this info, DP.
As for China’s automatic fastening (drilling/riveting/two piece fasteners (composite material) system, they are at the beginning phase, a private company and Chinese university (not connected) have Chinese patents. But long term goal for China’s in commercial aircraft mfg. (e.g. C919 and C919), is to add to production capacity that currently have Electroimpact, Gemcor and Brotje Automation as the main players for (e.g. C909, C919 and C929)
The two US companies seem no longer have interest in selling to the China market because of global trade friction (e.g. they also have US government contracts)..connect the dots) That leaves Brotje Automation (Germany and Chinese owned) as the main player for now
As for the future China competitors…at “least” 5 years away to get a automatic fastening/riveting system on commercial aircraft program Most likely the development path would be first to put their equipment on Chinese military cargo programs (e.g. Y20 and Y8) (wings and fuselage)
@PNWgeek:
Interesting write up. Still chewing on it. My first thought was “Super Cub” ! Granted its got steel ribs. But rag wings and glue, sweet. And then there is the Carbon Cub.
It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of working metal vs composites.
My first thought is, composites look simple, but what goes into them tech wise is not. So its possible metal is easier.
Then the flip is, metals need various treatments from the mix to the setting and then any heat conditions and where and when and…………………………..
Not having worked with composites other than Fiberglass Boats back in the day, kind of hmmm. A bit like that Freeway Ramp in Seattle, suddenly it ends.
Maybe a good barometer is Russia and the shift to Russian made composites (vs the Russian process of them). It may not be as good as what Japan makes, but they are getting it done if a lot heavier than you would want.
Starship used the method first and quite some time back.
Maybe as good an aspect that would have to be addressee is World recognized cfertiatio0n. Long range high cap wide body has to be able to fly to all locations.
As for engines, its not just the fuel burn as important as that is, its the reliability and wear out (not the same thing).
Military has long done the swap it out as needed. Little known was WWII and how often they swapped out fighter engines. Merlins more than anything. It was a choice of max performance was the only criteria, if it wore out (as long as it did not break) too soon, you just make more engines (or get more from the US).
Direct contrast to the Allison V-1710, it last a lot longer as it was tested to tougher criteria and supposed to not go max all the time. It was found you could and still get a pretty good TOW. But that was a luxury the US had and the UK did not.
Civilian jet engines are all about SFC, Reliability and TOW. RR worked that mix with a higher cost 3 spool system and got all 3 with a superior SFC.
How fast China can get the mix of 3 working is the big question. Their base is Russian engines and like the UK, Russia was willing to loose TOW for performance. Wear out yes, break, no. SFC not so much but that is low on all military engines, performance first (add wind tanks, tankers etc to make up the SFC).
Military build (structure and engines) you can hide, but civie stuff is out in the open and its totally different.
The 64 Billion question is can they shift over and how soon will it take?
So far its a slow build Chinese hull packed with Western Equipment and driven by Western Engines.